~-------------==--------tI
TOWN OF CAPE VINCENT ZONING LAW 1989
AS AMENDED1991 AS AMENDED 1993 AS AMENDED 1998

aa

D

all

n

ARTICLE I INTRODUCTORY

PROVISIONS
"

105

Enacting Clause

Pursuant to the provisions of Municipal Home Rule Law, section 10, and Article 16 of Town Law, the Town Board of 'the Towri6fcape Vincent, in Jefferson County, and the state of New York, h$reby enacts this local law.
section 110 Title

This local shall be known and may be cited as "Town of Cape Vincent Zoning Law." Section 115 Purpose is designed to protect existing development while , control of growth so that futurEi development will not be the town and its residents. to:

This local law providing some a detriment to It is intended

provide adequate light and air; prevent the overcrowding of land; avoid the undue concentration of popUlation; lessen congestion on the highways; ensure adequace transportation, water, sewage, sc~6ot, fire, police, ~ and other faciIities; , , ';' conserve property values; encourage the development of land for its most appropriate use within the town, and to conserve and protect the rural, agricultural, and scenic resources of the Town;

preserve and protect historical.ly signifio~nt' Lands and buildings; regulate commercial and other non-resi4eritial uses in a manner that is sensitive to the natural and scenic 'res6~rces'of the community and provides freedom for landOWpersto ma)cepenificial economic use of their land, provided that such uses are hot harmful to neighboring properties.
Section 120 One Use Per Lot shall be no more than one principal
I

Re Comment on SDEIS St Lawrence Wind farm I frequently drive through the town of Cape Vincent I feel Cape Vincent is not the right community for wind turbines ..The roads and fields are lovely and are to be protected as rural landscapes with historic preservation stone farmhouses and old barns under the NY State preservation laws ..Input under the SEQR process has been inadequate,
~~

Pa;~~~ub .. Shady Shores Clayton NY 13624

Old Bird, Inc.
605 W. State St. Ithaca, NY 14850 (607) 272-1786 May 29, 2009 Town of Cape Vincent Attention: Town Supervisor PO. Box 680 Cape Vincent, NY 13618 Re: St. Lawrence Wind Project SDEIS To the Town of Cape Vincent Town Supervisor and Planning Board Members: The St. Lawrence wind project location is not a generic inland site in central New York It is proximal to one of the largest rivers in North America and at the base of a large peninsula There is no case I am aware of where such geographic elements do not cause concentrations of migrating birds and coastal channeling dynamics -- yet the West Inc (West) studies provide little evidence documenting any such phenomena, This suggests to me a poor study design given that concerns for these avian concentration dynamics, and associated increased avian collision risk, were at the heart of the NYDEC and USFWS comments when these agencies were consulted about the preconstruction research plan for this wind project For example, the 2006 bird and bat work plan for this wind project stated:
"Based on conunents from NYSDEC and USFWS, the ideal radar sampling location would allow characterization of avian/bat movement along the shoreline. This proposed sampling location would allow characterization of avian/bat movement along the shoreline, as well as movement over inland areas, One radar sampling location will be selected based on constraints of the radar (e.g., minimization of ground interference), property ownership. and access. Attempts will be made to position the radar unit approximately L5 Ian from the shoreline at a location that will maximize radar visibility within the overall proposed development area." P.3 A&B Work Plan

However, neither the avian/bat passage rates proximal to the shoreline nor over inland areas were characterized in the West radar study. All that was provided is a passage rate that sums up the whole radar-swept area, most of which is outside the wind project (see below), and another determination of passage rate from a thin slice of atmosphere from the vertical mode of radar operation, which also was collected outside the wind project area. I fail to see how these radar data satisfy the stated goals of the Bird & Bat Work Plan for the West radar study of bird migration dynamics pertinent to the sr. Lawrence wind project As discussed in my prior comments (June 14, 2007~ appended below), West located the radar equipment -05 km (instead of the prescribed -1.5 km) from the river edge. As such, the West study provides us with passage rate data (horizontal mode) where a third

of the area of the radar sweep is over the St. Lawrence River. The bird activity in this over-river airspace is totally impertinent for avian impacts of this wind project and it likely severely biases the results, among other reasons for the following, If the suspected channeling of night migrants is occurring at relatively low altitudes in the over-land shoreline zone, there would also likely be a concomitant lack of landbird migrants at relatively low altitudes over the river (termed "water-impeded" passage rate hereafter). Thus, if the radar had been located the prescribed 1" 5 km from the shoreline, the passage rate would have likely been even higher than the 346 t/kmlhr fall passage rate calculated by West (using the horizontal-mode data of their radar equipment). This is because the lower density (low-altitude) migration over water wouldn't have been included in the overall passage rate figure whereas higher density overland migration would have, The passage rate determined from the vertical radar analysis is just a single small slice of atmosphere adjacent to the project area and doesn't tell us anything about channeling dynamics or the migration density across the larger project area, Because of the narrow airspace that is sampled at low altitude by the vertical method, its results are not statistically robust for indicating low-altitude passage rate. It should be noted, however, that both the "water-impeded" horizontal-mode passage rate and the thin-slice vertical passage rate are more than twice as high as the mean nocturnal passage rate determined by the fall ABR radar study at Maple Ridge in 2005 (158 t/kmlhr), which used similar analysis methods. The Maple Ridge wind project may have incurred avian fatalities as high as 9 birds per turbine in a 5-month study period (Jain et at 2007) Should we then expect 20+ birds per turbine at the proposed St. Lawrence wind project in a similar 5month period based on the twice as high radar-determined passage rate? Perhaps that possibility deserves a note in the FEIS for the St. Lawrence wind project Because that would be the highest avian fatality rate documented at any wind project in North America, In the current DEIS/SDEIS, there is no indication that such a high avian fatality rate might be a possibility. This 20+ bird per turbine per 5~months calculation is as valid as any such statistic that West includes in their study - eg, their comparison of data from other wind projects or other sources of mortality Furthermore, what stands out to me is that the 05 km radar station location from the St. Lawrence River instead of the prescribed -,15 km location is not mentioned in the West radar report or the SDEIS. The following statement on p. 46 in the West radar report stands out as a potential intentional cover-up: "The passage rate in the study area may have been influenced locally by the close proximity of the radar unit to the shoreline « 1.5 km), though this distance was recommended by the NYDEC and USFWS to investigate this question, ," L Why doesn't the SDEIS come out and say that the radar was only located ~05 krn from the St Lawrence River instead of the prescribed -,1,5 kilometers? 2. Why does this SDEIS incorrectly state that the USFWS and NYDEC recommended that the radar be less than 1.5 km away from the shore when, in fact, these agencies requested that it be "approximately" 1.5 km away ..

This has the smell of a cover-up. In any case, this falsehood in the record needs to be corrected in the final EIS The West study does provide directional data of targets, which has the potential to indicate channeling dynamics if carried out properly. But the directional data they use in their analysis is from targets detected across all altitudes surveyed. West's inclusion of high-altitude targets in this analysis will tend to mask any channeling along the shoreline region because such channeling activity would be primarily at low-altitudes The West study does not provide any quantification of the relative rates of passage below turbine height over the water, over the coastal zone, or over the inland regions - data that would help substantiate whether channeling along the lakeshore was occurring. For various reasons, the preconstruction radar study for this wind project was not as productive as it could have been, What this means is there is a lot less certainty in any forecast for impact to night migrating songbirds, which so far appear to compose more than 80% offatalities in eastern North American wind projects ..I think the SDEIS and the West radar study's predictions of inconsequential collision impacts to birds are without solid basis. The avian collision impact is potentially much higher than is suggested by the SDEIS and West. For related studies, I have conducted nocturnal migration research in the region of the St Lawrence wind project using acoustic monitoring of avian flight calls While my data suggest channeling dynamics in the region and unusual avian concentration dynamics due to the peninsular location of this wind project, it is clear that more research needs to and could be conducted to understand these complex nocturnal migration dynamics with regard to reducing the avian impact of wind projects in the region. What is needed is a study with multiple nocturnal monitoring methodologies that can monitor the atmospheric stratum below turbine height of multiple sites" Such a study would help site turbines in areas that would have less nocturnal migration traffic below turbine height, and theoretically less collision risk Such a study is worth consideration by all parties as wind turbine development in this region is a long-term prospect While the West radar study has serious flaws and could have been carried out more productively, the NYDEC bears some responsibility for making sure that the preconstruction studies are on track to be productive. The preconstruction studies for the St Lawrence wind project were designed and carried out before the NYDEC guidance on wind power development were finalized and fulJy thought out, It should be noted that avian impact mitigation at wind projects is a learning process for all involved The wind industry is the primary proponent (and receiver of significant public $ stimuli) As such, it has to bear a major burden for compliance with the full spectrum of public service surround wind projects, including environmental impacts. While the impact to night migrating birds is a substantial issue for the St. Lawrence wind project, having read the DEIS/SDEIS I have the responsibility to state that the breeding bird survey for this impact statement (DEIS/SDEIS) is lacking consideration for a

number of species, several of which are listed species in New York I have carried out an acoustic monitoring of avian night migration a kilometer or so west of the intersection of Rosiere Rd. and Millens Bay Rd. This location is approximately 1 km south of the St. Lawrence wind turbine project - roughly the same distance as the West radar equipment was from the wind project area, My acoustic study documented multiple flight calls of the following species in the first week of June 2007: Black-crowned Night Heron Least Bittern (NYS: Threatened) Virginia Rail Whip-poor-will (NYS: Special Concern) Grasshopper Sparrow (NYS: Special Concern) The site where these species were recorded was simply an open field area, For most of these species, this suggests they were flying about at night in regions outside of their preferred feeding and nesting habitat. The fact that three of these species are associated with wetlands suggests that they are breeding within (or in the near vicinity) of the St. Lawrence wind project and are traversing the region to reach distant feeding grounds The wind project area contains numerous small wetlands and these species are likely using these wetlands during the breeding season as wen as the migration periods. I am confident that most of these species could be documented flying at night within the St. Lawrence wind project area by acoustic monitoring stations (via their flight caUs) on any night with winds less than 10 mph in the months of June and June. I am happy to provide a demonstration for this to representatives of the St. Lawrence Wind Project, the Cape Vincent Town Board, NYDEC, and USFWS during June or July 2009, I am also happy to provide the flight call data I have acquired that substantiates the presence of these species near the S1.Lawrence wind project In conclusion, these five species (noted above) should probably be included on the list of species that may be impacted by the St. Lawrence wind project While Grasshopper Sparrow was documented in the West breeding bird study (1 individual), my acoustic data suggests this species engages in substantial nocturnal flight activity in the region during the breeding season and that substantial numbers are potentially at risk of collision with the St. Lawrence wind project Sincerely, William R Evans Executive Director

**********************************

Begin appended letter from June 14, 2007

Old Bird, Inc.
605 W, State St Ithaca, NY 14850 (607) 272-1786 June 14, 2007 Town of Cape Vincent Planning Board Chairman PO Box 680 Cape Vincent, NY 13618 Dear Town of Cape Vincent Planning Board Chairman and Members: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the St. Lawrence Wind project Please find below my comments on the "preliminary results" ofthe nocturnal radar study by West Inc, which was included in the St Lawrence DEIS. I am director of a nonprofit based in Ithaca) NY that focuses on the study of nocturnal bird migration, I am a nationally recognized expert on that topic as well as bird mortality at tall man-made structures I am currently a principal investigator on a NYSERDA~sponsored nocturnal bird migration study at the Maple Ridge wind project, 75 km southeast of Cape Vincent Between 2004'"2005 I carried out nocturnal bird migration studies for Ecogen LLC, a wind developer for a proposed wind project near Prattsburgh, NY, and at similar wind energy projects in Pennsylvania and Vermont Because of my expertise in nocturnal bird migration and the impacts oftal1 manmade structures on night migrating birds along with my experience at wind projects, I am frequently invited to speak at workshops on the impact of wind energy on wildlife, This includes three such conferences in 2006, I have attached my credentials at the end of this document, which demonstrate my expertise for providing this review of the West radar study. Comments

on S1. Lawrence

Wind DEIS (draft of June 15,2007)

My first comment involves the time table of the public comment period for the proposed 81, Lawrence Wind Farm project DEIS with regard to when specific information in the DEIS became available for public review" The field work for the nocturnal radar study was finished by November 2006, however the results of that study were only made available for public review about two weeks before the public comment period on the DEI8 was over. While it is nice to have this information available for

examination, the short time period available does not allow adequate review by the handful of people who are qualified to carry out such review, This includes experts like myself who are frequently asked to comment on such reports and NYDEC and USFWS officials who are swamped with numerous wind projects in NYS, Out of respect for the DEIS process, the comment period should be extended. Though I have not had time to fully review the St. Lawrence Wind project radar study carried out by West, Inc" I note the following information is lacking:
e

The project turbines are proposed to be up to 425 ft high (based on a 2008 construction schedule), The contractor only provides information on bird migration under 410 ft (125 m) agl Given that wind turbines are tending to get larger and that this project, as with many wind projects, take longer to be built than projected, bird/bat migration altitude information should be provided at 25-m resolution up to 200 m above ground level Nightly data on passage rate below turbine height is not presented. Without this information one cannot see whether nights with significant migration under turbine height correspond to the time when any State or Federal Endangered or Threatened night migrating birds are likely to be moving through the region, Just providing a seasonal average for targets below 125 m is not very helpful for assessing flying animal impact For example, were the numbers below 125 m concentrated in August when the main bat migration was occurring? When presenting such data, it would be useful if West Inc, presented it in tabular format with actual figures rather than bar graphs where the actual number can only be approximated, Since West Inc, is relatively new to carrying out radar studies, I suggest that West Inc. follow the format of more experienced radar consultants such as Woodlot Alternatives in presenting their radar data

e

These latter two deficiencies in the West radar study may be able to be corrected if West Inc. has archived their radar data from the study. It would then simply be a matter of going back and recalculating the data and reproducing the figures. The most significant problems I find with the West Inc. radar study involve the location they chose to carry out their radar study and their lack of analysis of migration density dynamics within their radar study area. The St. Lawrence Wind project area is currently (June 15 DEIS) proposed to be located within 800 m of the St. Lawrence River The radar study site was apparently only about 500 m from the shoreline (see Fig. 3 in West report), in fact, outside the wind project area. My interpretation of the NYSDEC and USFWS comments is that the radar site would ideally be located 1500 m from the shoreline (p. 3, Avian and Bat Study Plan 7/06). The consultant states:
"Attempts will be made to position the radar unit approximately Lfi-km from the shoreline at a location that will maximize radar visibility within the overall proposed development area." PJ A&B Study Plan 7/06

West's placement of the radar unit approximately one kilometer closer to the shoreline than had apparently been recommended leads to the fact that about one third of the radar

detection area was located over the St Lawrence River (see Fig 3 in the West report) and less than half of their radar coverage was actually over the proposed wind project site. This is based on West's stated method of determining passage rate in the horizontal mode:
"To determine passage rates in horizontal mode, the 2~dimensional area represented by the radar image was treated as a l-dimensional "front" perpendicular to the direction of migration, with length equal to '3 km (the diameter of the surveyed area); all targets counted in the radar image during the sampling period were treated as if they had crossed the front" P.8 West radar study

There are no radar studies in inland New York State that include such a large over-water proportion in their sampling region, and especially over a directional water body such as the St Lawrence River that likely channels bird and bat migration. This is problematic for comparing horizontal radar data from the West radar study to those of other New York radar studies, which West does in the text oftheir report and in Table 7 of their report Based on my own research in eastern North America, there is a strong likelihood that more small songbird migration in the fall occurs inland along the St Lawrence River than over the water of the St. Lawrence River. This would especially be true on evenings when winds are below 10 miles per hour or if winds were from the east. West's data does suggest that the St. Lawrence plays a role in channeling nocturnal migration This is indicated by Fig 4, in which the strongest flight vector is parallel to the river shore and by the overall more southwesterly direction (toward the angle of the shoreline) of flight documented in this study compared to some similar radar studies in New York However, West's analysis provides us with no information on the details of this channeling ..Is it occurring across the whole SL Lawrence Valley? Is it occurring only at low altitudes? These latter questions have considerable bearing on the avian (and potentially bat) impact of wind projects on the Cape Vincent peninsula These questions appear to be a thrust of the Avian and Bat Study Plan (07/06) for this project, which states.
"This proposed sampling location would allow characterization ofavian/bat movement along the shoreline. as well as movement over inland areas." P.3 A&B Study Plan

The West radar report, however, does not provide information on movements along the shoreline and those over inland areas. The radar data from over the S1,Lawrence River, its shoreline, and inland areas of coverage are simply summed together to produce a single passage rate for the whole radar survey area. The question of migration corridor along the south shore of the S1,Lawrence is not addressed as was suggested it would be in the Study Plan (see quote above). What we want to know is what are the characteristics of the nocturnal migration that flies over land (where turbines might be constructed) in the vicinity of the south shore of the St Lawrence River on the Cape Vincent Peninsula. Presuming West Inc. has archived their radar observation data, it may be possible that they can go back and reanalyze their data and provide this information. What would be useful to see in evaluating potential impact to night migrants is a 500 m resolution representation of flying target (presumed birds and bats) density as one moves away from the 81. Lawrence River In other words,

what is the migration density within 500 m of the River? What is the migration density in the zone between 500 m and 1 Ion from the River? What is the migration density in the zone between 1 km and 1.5 km from the river? What is the migration density in the zone between 1.5 krn and 2.0 km from the River? How do these migration density dynamics vary with weather? Such data can be obtained from a properly designed marine radar study or with other methodologies. In addition, concurrent use of image intensifier methodology can be used to help understand the proportion of bats and birds in the flying animal mix revealed by the radar Summary The wind industry has been plagued with bird kill and bat kill issues ..This is the reason why bird and bat studies are often conducted at proposed wind project sites before construction. Most proposed wind projects in New York State are located well away from major water bodies that cause migration channeling and migration concentration dynamics. Most of these studies have carried out one year of migration study before having their DEIS reviewed. Because of its proximity to Lake Ontario and the st. Lawrence River, the Cape Vincent peninsula will have complex migration channeling and concentration phenomenon. The specifics of these dynamics are largely unknown and will require more study than typical inland wind projects in New York State in order to minimize the wildlife impact of wind turbine placement My professional opinion, and those of others I have spoken with, is that some areas on the Cape Vincent peninsula have the potential to result in the highest bird and bat mortality per wind turbine to date in eastern North America if wind turbines are built there. Such concern calls for more than one year of wildlife monitoring and three years is not out of the question. Rushing a wind project through without adequately understanding wildlife impacts could negatively impact the Town as well as the effectiveness of the wind project. For the Town, lack of adequate wildlife monitoring at a wind project such as this will lead to increased attention by major environmental organization on wind projects at Cape Vincent and more detailed scrutiny of the Town Board's role in approving such projects, Major environmental groups such as National Wildlife Federation, Audubon, Sierra Club and others are generally in favor of utility-scale wind energy projects as long as such projects are sited properly. The information in the current DEIS for the St. Lawrence Wind project does not convey confidence in proper siting. Major concerns for migratory corridors along the south shore of the St. Lawrence and wintering raptor concentrations have not been adequately addressed, For the wind developer, rushing ahead with wind project development and then finding that the project incurs problematic wildlife impacts, after having received previous warning that such might occur, may trigger prosecution under various wildlife protection laws. Such litigation could lead to extensive periods of time during migration periods when wind turbine operation is shut down (i.e .. lost revenue for the wind project). , For example, the Altamont wind project in California is currently shutdown for 6 mos. a year due to concerns over eagle mortality .. Whether wind projects on Cape Vincent will have such problematic wildlife impacts is currently unknown, but of all 45 proposed wind projects in New York that I am aware of, my professional opinion is that wind projects on the Cape Vincent

peninsula (as well as other sites in close proximity to major water courses) have a real possibility of becoming Altamont's of the east The initial development of wind projects in New York State should be kept away from close proximity to major watercourses, which we have good reason to believe have higher concentrations of migratory flying animals. If projects are to be built at such locations, they should have the maximum wildlife impact studies recommended by State and Federal Governments, Wind energy is good for our nation in many ways. Please slow down your DEIS process on this and other wind projects you may be facing and allow adequate environmental studies so that wildlife impacts are thoroughly addressed.

cui: 1. e.:«.
William R. Evans Executive Director
'* Cc: NYDEC, USFWS

Sincerely yours,

5/29109

Mr. Thomas Rienbeck, Town Supervisor Town of Cape Vincent P.O. Box 680 Cape Vincent, NY 1.3618 Dear Tom, In reviewing the supplemental environmental impact statement for S1. Lawrence Wind Farm, I would like to bring to your attention paragraph 7.2 which states that "the Project will meet all of the setbacks required by the Planning Board of Cape Vincent". Those setbacks are 1,500 feet from the Village of Cape Vincent boundary line, 1,000 feet to a non-participating property line, 1,250 feet to a non-participating residence, and 750 feet to a participating residence. As the Town has not proceeded with a zoning law that includes turbines with regulations, it would seem that the above figures are what the Planning Board will ask of S1.Lawrence Wind Farm" As I have written you recently that these setbacks are totally inadequate for the safety of our residents, it will be necessary for a much larger setback to be included in the SElS" Therefore, I request that you (Planning Board) require changes to 72. It is bordering on a crime to even consider that some residents will be forced out of their homes due to inability to live with conditions caused by the location of turbines to their homes. I want you to realize that THERE ARE NO HEROES IN THIS DILEMMA CAPE VINCENT IS FACING AT THIS TIME. The dilemma is safety of our residents verses the desires of those who profit and demand the industry in our township. I cannot fathom how some of the pro wind turbine residents can overlook the health and welfare of our community let alone see what turbines have done to the landscape of Wolfe Island. The monies the town acquires from the Pilot will be eaten up by loss of revenue from property taxes" Properties will decrease in value due to the turbine industry" What do we gain? Nothing!! Oh, what we gain are several families getting several thousand dollars a year for many years and the rest of the community have a loss of home values, some with medical issues, and resentment and distrust for our community for many years to come. Sounds like a good deal to me!! Do the math if you care about nothing else. Submitted by

..-"'/.".;'t:-c .o,:_ -7' ~ v
Sarah F, Boss

,/'

;7

/1

.'

q;;;_u t-t
#1//7.

Q

f)

Care

I/;z-r c.

e 11-/
r:u VRt:H(?

~!:::;~OfP05eo(
l~~,'/?()/ /7

Si-,__/_C{

s: el:9 y
II<:;p
t Ve_

'()o_j'ec"

v.
(7

Cf

f /~
'-lit e
C?

.f! N r/
~:?_;J..,}{

It/; (1 ('/

#36'

-100

clost?
q-

TC

our-

p r l".J:P e

J

A

,IY

'lc:x

I-/crp
/VYS

c;< q, 19 - / - S"2

'?.fe
'-/1((;

/2 E '
j/ircj'?("'r ~

7/1

fJ
'II
TN

IA./OL'<

r:n
t""'O

lv I

g,
I'- (

Ict
V
I

cit? Va /ue

ve r

,

'e L-t/
/

.

t?

11 0 / c: (-?
O'NC/

Ie /_.IC-

fl.- co sI

b

o!'/,

-# 39

Y Of

~//e_

#.3

g- t~///

e#c·/

tv:./'! c:-/1J;:; ht 'Irc_>:,
r

Our

3S-0s o 5/ Wi, /:.;;. £
Care v"'t'1
Ce'//'//

AI.YI36/j(

May 26,2008

Town Supervisor Thomas Rienbeck P.O. Box 680 Cape Vincent, New York Dear Tom, I have reviewed the April 2009 st. Lawrence Wind Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and have identified comments that members of Wind Power Ethics Group, LLC and Government Agencies made regarding the DEIS either in the Public Hearing or in written comments that are not addressed in the SElS. 1) What are the migratory patterns of the herons and how high do they fly when they are migrating? How long do they stay in Cape Vincent? When do they arrive and when do they depart? Why isn't this addressed in the DEIS? 2) Impacts of shadow effect on wild life should be part of the DEIS. 3) Individuals, guides and town must be compensated if towers result in loss of fishing revenues, 4) SLW needs to establish who the environmental monitor works for and who he/she sends reports to. 5) The development of a long-term environmental management plan should be considered to incorporate plans for restoration of environmental impacts during the following project construction, environmental considerations to be included in ongoing maintenance of facility, a contingency plan to assess and minimize environmental impacts during major repairs, and assessment and mitigation of environmental impacts during decommissioning process. 6) It is important to know the impacts of shadow effect on the fish in the water. 7) How can the impact on wells and springs be evaluated if there is no baseline for the springs or wells. Fieldwork should be done to establish major springs and their use or flow prior to construction. I would like to see identification of all wells and springs within 500 feet of where blasting will occur. Also address the steps to be made to provide citizens with potable water ifproblems occur, 8) The project may require an Article 24 Freshwater Wetland permit and section 401 Water Quality Certification.

9) Since issues regarding potential medical problems related to wind turbines come up with proposals around the state, it would seem appropriate to include a section on medical issues in the DEIS. 10) Critical information is needed to evaluate potential impacts resulting from the project not performed as part of the DEIS. The DEIS should be updated to include: Geotechnical field data; groundwater studies; wetland field survey; and hydro geological balance study based upon long-term runoff By omission of this information during the design and review stage with a disclaimer that it will be obtained "prior to construction" the developer avoids all accountability from lead agency, involved agency and public comment. 11) At best the studies to date may be considered pilot efforts requiring 3-5 years of intense further studies of many groups before any conclusions of value may be drawn, 12) Are you and the Audubon Society aware of the IBA (Important Bird Habitat) on Pleasant Valley Road? How will it be affected? What does Audubon say? 13) The lease with SL W takes away landowners' constitutional rights to sue for punitive damages and the right to jury triaL Why is this acceptable? 14) Section 2.6.4 ofthe SDEIS needs to include a description of specific processes that will be implemented to ensure the concrete is handled properly during construction to limit the impacts to surface waters, wetlands and underground waters, given the existence of karst topography in the project area. 15) The report should specifically state that the habitat type located at Chaumont Barrens and Three Mile Creek will not be impacted by the project 16) Section 3.2 shows that NO biotic or water quality data is provided but this information should be included in the report along with a discussion of potential impacts from project construction. 17) Section 3..3 of the DEIS does not identify if the wind project will impact to establish the St. Lawrence Wetland and Grassland Management District (SL WGMD), Nor does it mention if it is compatible with the purpose of SLWGMD, 18) Section 3,.3.6 NYS Fish and Wild Life strongly recommend that the Smith (2007) be considered by the project sponsor in siting the project features, 19) Section 3.3.6 NYSFWL found insufficient data exists to adequately conduct a risk assessment and predict wildlife mortality for this project

20) The DEIS falls short of providing the necessary information in a comprehensive manner, The DEIS states that additional data on wildlife use and potential impacts is forthcoming, NYSFWL will review this information prior to making a final determination. Respectfully submitted,

Thank you for allowing me to submit comments to the SEIS of S1. Lawrence Wind Farm, concerns of which I will go into detail.

In section 3.1.1.2 SLW says that karst limestone presents special problems for civil engineering projects such as roads, bridges, tunnels, sewerage pipelines, and mining. Careful preparatory investigations are therefore required with special design measures and provisions for unforeseen problems. As a result, bedrock in the project area should be investigated for karst and other dissolution features as part of the geotechnical investigations prior to construction. Will the geotechnical investigation be included in the FEIS? Paragraph 3.L33 does not mention the use of an environmental monitor. In order to provide proper oversight of these activities it is important that an environmental monitor be on site for all pre-construction survey and any construction activities that involve excavation to bedrock or are located in proximity to known karst feature. Will an environmental monitor be present? In paragraph 323.3 the discussion on soil is too general. Each turbine site, access road, electric line pole and substation needs a soil map. In paragraph 3A2 SLW says that the turbine construction cranes would he transported to the site in a semi-dismantled manner and hauled to specific crane assembly areas designed along the turbine access roads" The locations of the crane assembly area would depend on the feasibility of walking the crane between turbine sites" This would be further evaluated as part of the comprehensive transportation study pending Project approval. Will the comprehensive transportation study. delivery routes and crane assembly areas be part of the FEIS? In 3,9.1 there is no discussion of the impact of the turbines on the ozone level which is already out of compliance with EPA guidelines" What is the impact and if so, how will you mitigate? 3.11.3 states that the only potential adverse impact to municipal budgets and taxes would be the impact of the Project construction on local roads, and the need to repair or upgrade these roads to accommodate construction vehicles and higher activity. To mitigate this

impact, any construction-related damage or improvements to State, County, or town roads would be the responsibility of the Applicant and would be undertaken at no expense to the municipalities" How long after project completion is this going to continue? In 3013,1.2 paragraph SL W states that ice shed may occur when ice builds up on the blade of a turbine and then breaks off and falls to the ground. While this is a potential safety concern, it should be noted that there has never been a reported injury from ice shed by wind turbines, despite the installation of more than 6,000 MW of wind energy worldwide (Morgan, Bossanyi, and Siefert, 1998.) This is an (11) eleven-year-old study. Why are you not using a more recent study? Respectfully submitted,

The following are my comments pertaining to noise background studies and impact analysis described in the St. Lawrence Wind Farm Supplemental DEIS section 3,10. I have also attached a copy of a paper I prepared: "Measuring background noise with an attended. mobile survey during nights with stable atmospheric conditions," which demonstrates that background sounds in Cape Vincent are far lower than AES-Acciona depicts in their SDEISI. In a discussion I had at the public hearing on May 16, your attorney Todd Mathes suggested that he and the Planning Board would pay attention to anyone who may have collected their own background sound levels in Cape Vincent I hope Attorney Mathes is correct and that the Planning Board will examine not only my report, but also the background sound level report prepared by Schomer and Associates forWPEG. After carefully reviewing AES-Acciona's SDEIS sound report, I am convinced it is severely biased in favor of the developer. The principal problem is their elevated estimate of background sound. The Planning Board now has to carefully weigh the technical merits of all three reports, as well as the various comments directed at the developer'S noise studies. To help determine the right path from the maze of technical details, the Planning Board needs an independent, comparative review of these materials by their engineering consultants, Bernier-Carr and Cavanaugh-Tocci. From what I have seen in the past, they have produced fair, balanced reporting and advice. Moreover, any review they provide should be made public, preferably prior to issuing an FEIS. Establishing an unbiased measure of the background sound in Cape Vincent is a crucial issue and it needs a careful, open review by your technical experts. Comments: 3.10.1 Affected Environment: The map showing non-resident receptors is inadequate. The purpose of this section of the SDEIS is to document potential adverse affects on non-participating residents. Exhibit 3.10.1 should show all non-participating residents and their property lines within the 1mile buffer zone of the project. Moreover, each non-participating residence should be
1 I will be presenting the paper at the Institute of Noise Control Engineering conference, 2009, at Ottawa in August.

INTERNOISE

S1. Lawrence Wind SDEIS Comments by C. Schneider May 30, 2009

2

noted in a table format including address of the residence, assumed background noise and projected noise impact from the wind farm. This is common practice for many other wind project DEISs within New York It also provides a format that will not require interpretation if compliance or complaint resolution surveys are needed in the future. The poor resolution maps in SLWF SDEIS need to be redone: property lines need to be shown clearly in every map, not just the map indicating combined impacts from both wind development projects. Noise monitoring sites were arbitrarily chosen and all sites were located on lease-holder land. In addition, a number of sites were adjacent to sources of noise that elevate background sound. Since this analysis is ultimately intended to assess impacts on non~ participating residents, the selection of noise monitoring sites should have focused on those properties. Using lease-holder properties also brings into question whether these individuals understood the significance of the noise assessment to project approval, and thereby, may have unduly influenced the monitoring process. For this reason alone. a new survey should be undertaken that represents background noise for non-participating residents rather than noise conditions for lease-holders. All references to LEQ noise metrics in this SEQR should be struck. It adds nothing but confusion. Appropriately, L90 descriptors were used to document background noise in subsequent analyses; therefore, focus on their use and do not try to convince us that the L90 metric is "too conservative." More importantly. the Town's acoustic consultant also recommended that references to LEO background noise levels should be "struck" from the SDEIS. The Town is well advised to adhere to the recommendations of their expert consultants. The use of regression analysis to estimate background noise is inappropriate. First, this procedure is not a part of any environmental noise measuring standard currently in practice in New York (although it is commonly used by Hessler). In the NYSDEC policy on Assessing and Mitigating Noise Impacts, which the developer cites frequently in this SDEIS, there is no mention of measuring background noise by regressing sound levels on f O-m extrapolated wind velocities. Also, the proper use of linear regression assumes the independent variable, e.g., wind speed, is measured without error, but this is clearly not the case here. Wind speed was estimated from a single meteorological tower at a height of 40 m (-120 ft). The wind speed at 40111was then "normalized" to a height of lO-m, using a formula that does not adequately represent local wind shear conditions. Moreover, wind speed at some sites was associated with noise levels measure more than 7 miles away - this is ridiculous All these factors combined not only make for substantial variation in the data, but also suggest problems with accuracy as welL Even if the approach was standardized, wind speed should be measured adjacent to and at the height of the sound level meter's microphone. Again, the Town's acoustic expert also recommended that regression analysis should not be used to describe background noise in Cape Vincent The developer needs to conduct another background noise survey that not only uses more representative monitoring sites. but incorporates a methodology that conforms to recommendations of the Town's acoustic consultant.

St. Lawrence Wind SDEIS Comments by C. Schneider May 30, 2009 For another view of what constitutes background sound levels in Cape Vincent, refer to my attached report. It demonstrates that in 30% of the nights ground level winds can be calm while wind turbines could be operating noisily" Median background L90A noise levels were 2506 dBA under stable, calm conditions, which is similar to the levels reported in the SDEIS with no wind. The developer needs to conduct another project layout and impact analysis that assumes a 26 dBA background sound along with the NYSDEC noise impact allowance. e.g .. 5 dBA for project-only increase (6 dBA for project + background).

3

3.10.2.2 Operation: The developer has proposed using Acciona AW-8211S00 WIGo This wind turbine's sound power levels are presented in Table 3-.30. However, no details are provided on the source levels. For example, how many units were measured and under what conditions were they assessed? For the assumed power level of 101. 7 dBA, is this an average sound power level? If it is. then another model analysis should be undertaken using the loudest levels measured, not just an average value" An average by definition suggests that Y1 the values will exceed the average, Therefore, it is more appropriate to use the loudest measurement within the series (excepting if it were an outlier) to ensure that actual sounds from turbines do not exceed model predictions" This supplemental analysis can be incorporated into the model run using the 26 dBA background sound level. Developer is wrong when it assert, "The worst case acoustic condition for the proposed Project occurs at a wind speedoj 6 nils, with the highest differential occurring between the wintertime [,90 background level 0/37 dBA and turbine sound power level (L W) of 101,7 re 1 p W at this wind speed." As I described in my report, the worst-case conditions for wind turbine noise are during stable nights, This is when turbines may produce 42 dBA sound levels (developer's example) at a non-participating residence, while ground level winds are nil and background sounds would otherwise be very low, e,g, 26 dBA This condition would result in the highest differential of 16 dBA, which is considered "objectionable" by NYSDEC noise assessment policy" Developers need to recast their analysis and wind farm layout using 31 dBA as the critical operational design level to better conform with worst case noise impacts and NYSDEC policy" Developer assumes a ground absorption coefficient of 0.5, which may diminish potential noise impacts. As noted by Planning Board's acoustic consultant, there is recent scientific evidence that the developer's predictive modeling should set ground absorption to zero, In the additional noise impact modeling that will correct background and sound power levels. the developer can also correct the ground absorption coefficient as well. Developer is correct to conclude that "<under normal day-to-day circumstances Of wind and weather operational noise from the nearest turbines is likely to be clearly audible much a/the time," But developer is incorrect to add, "except during calm or near calm conditions." As noted above and in my study, the worse-case conditions for adverse noise impacts will occur on calm nights. Moreover, these worse-case atmospheric

SL Lawrence Wind SDEIS Comments by C Schneider May 30, 2009 conditions are very common in Cape Vincent; not temporary phenomena as stated by developer (see my report). Developer admits that, "In general, Project sound emission under normal circumstances is likely to have a variance of +/- .5 dBA [rom the mean predicted lever." The suggestion is that noise levels may exceed NYSDEC standards simply because there is an error in their model results. To correct this deficiency and to better comply with NYSDEC standards, developer should adjust model analysis to use parameters (including setbacks) that will reduce predicted levels by 5 dBA in order to ensure compliance with noise standards. Merely stating noise impacts will exceed standards is unacceptable. An alternative turbine layout should be considered in order to comply with standards. The developer notes that three residences ".< were found to have a Project sound level that was slightly above the 6 dBA potential impact threshold." Again, rather than just noting the exceedance, the developer should make adjustments in their siting plan to ensure these non-participating residences will not have wind turbine noise impacts that exceed state guidelines.

4

The overall conclusion that "the numerous houses along the Sf. Lawrence River 'Shoreline, are well outside of the area ill which adverse Project noise impacts," is true if you assume a 37 dBA background level) but wrong because it is based on an elevated measure of background sound. The developer needs to provide a siting plan and a PIOject design sound level based on a 31 dBA impact contour, e.g., 26 dBA + 5 dBA for Project only noise addition, My own calculations suggest this analysis will then show that nearly all the homes along the river will be within the area of adverse wind turbine noise impacts. It is foolish for the developer to make statements like, "Response to any increase ill background sound levels is largely subjective .." The developer uses the NYSDEC criteria to assess impacts and they should not undermine their own adoption of the State guidelines by trying to minimize noise impacts. Stick to the standard and remove comments and opinions that diminish the importance of the policy guideline. The developer also indicates there will some non-participating residents who will have cumulative noise impacts from both wind projects that will exceed NYSDEC guidelines, The developer states, "The actual change in sound exposure at these locations would be small due to this cumulative affect" However) developer states earlier that there are substantial errors in their calculations (5 dBA) and that meteorological events can increase noise levels even further. Therefore, rather than just noting the problem and suggesting the exceedances will be small, the developer needs to increase the setback from the nearest offending turbines to reduce the noise impact on these residents.

Developer is incorrect in stating that, "The Project has been purposely designed to minimize environmental noise during Project operations. " By their own admission throughout the narrative their Project will not meet State guidelines .. More importantly, their use of an elevated background sound level that does not represent worse-case conditions only minimizes the real potential adverse impacts. The developer needs to go back and try harder to actually "minimize enviromnental noise during project operations," In the complaint resolution plan the developer states, "SL W intends to comply fully with
Town laws and all conditions of the authorizing permits during he operation of the project, including alllloise requirements." This statement does not conform with SDEIS

narrative on noise, which makes frequent references to exceeding NYSDEC noise guideline. The complaint plan as outlined in Appendix M is a reasonable approach to resolving any potential problems, excepting one organizational point The composition of the Complaint Board is tilted toward the developer .. As described, the developer not only has a seat on the three member board, but also gets to approve the third, supposedly independent, representative (a Town representative is the second member} Furthermore, there is a suggestion that the third member is some type of paid expert, Our community does not need another Hessler sitting on our Complaint Board, along with the developer, This arrangement is absurd! I suggest membership should be comprised of community representatives to include: 1) a representative from the Town or Village of Cape Vincent. appointed by the Town Supervisor: 2) a representative of the wind project's leaseholders. appointed by a majority vote of their members: and 3) a representative of the nonparticipating landowners. appointed by a majority vote of its membership. A nonparticipating landowner would be any landowner living within the bounds of the wind turbine sound design critiera, e.g., 5 dBA above background for Project only noise impacts. If this project goes through as outlined in the SLW DEIS and SDEIS there will be complaints about noise - count on it It will only make matters worse if legitimate complaints get swept under the rug because of a biased, tainted Complaint Board. Let's keep the developer out and the community in.
CONCLUSION:

I am really troubled by the tone of this SDEIS narrative on noise. The developer seems intent on admitting to excessive noise impacts on non-participating residents, rather than correcting or adjusting their Project plan. Furthermore, if this language and approach is acceptable to the Planning Board it will mean non-participating residents will never have a basis for an excessive noise complaint. The developer will simply note that they have stated very clearly and at numerous times in the SDEIS document that wind turbine noise will exceed State guidelines. If this noise impact assessment is approved, the Planning Board will be the focus of any future complaints, since the developer will contend that they were honest about exceeding State noise guidelines" Considering that zoning and

St. Lawrence Wind SDEIS Comments by C Schneider May 30, 2009

6

site plan review are designed to help protect "non-particiants" from adverse impacts from their neighbor's development, the entire noise narrative needs to be recast with more attention on providing better protection to many of our residents and for the developer to be more confident about their forecasted noise impacts not exceeding State guidelines.

Comments on SLW Noise Impact Assessment (Hessler, Oct. 22, 2008) 1.0 Introduction
The report notes that, "The primary basis for evaluating potential Project noise is the Program Policy Assessing and Mitigating Noise Impacts issued by the New York State Department ojEnvironmental Conservation (NYSDEC), Feb. 2001, Yet it also states the purpose is ".. to determine how much natural masking sound there might be - as a function ofwind speed - at the nearest residences to the Project" This is NOT a process described or recommended in the NYSDEC policy. It is an approach developed by the wind energy industry and it should be clearly stated that the background sound levels used in this report were not determined using conventional, approved environmental standards. The developer should provide measures of background noise based on more conventional standards for measuring environmental noise,

2.2 Background sounds as a function of wind speed:
Hessler concludes, " .. sound levels during the summer are heavily influenced by natural sounds, primarily insects and crickets" and notes sound levels were approximately 4.2 dBA in light winds (3 m/s). Hessler erred by not removing insect sounds from his estimate of summer sound levels. This was in violation of his own published recommendations of how to conduct baseline sound studies:" "For example, this approach allows the mathematical subtraction of highfrequency insect noise from summertime survey results yielding a modified Aweighted sound level that can be used as a year-round design basis, Without this adjustment, one might easily overestimate the long-term background level, particularly the nighttime level." Adding to this deception, Hessler fails to explain that insect noise will not mask wind turbine sounds because their frequency spectrum is much higher than typical wind turbine sounds. This misrepresentation of summer-time noise levels. without the adjustments that Hessler himself advocates, clearly demonstrates that all his work should be carefully scrutinized by the Town's acoustic consultant. The Planning Board should require Hessler to go back and make the adjustments he suggests in the Sound and Vibration Journal and recalculate summer background sound levels.

SL Lawrence Wind SDEIS Comments by C Schneider May 30, 2009 The report describes the worst-case condition relative to adverse wind turbine noise impact:
"III terms of potential noise impact and perceptibility the worst-case combination of background and turbine sound levels would occur at the wind speed where the background level was lowest relative to the turbine sound level - 01", in other words, where the differential between the background level and turbine sound power level is greatest"

7

Hessler uses regression analysis to assume the maximum differential occurs at a wind speed of 6 rn/s where background sound levels were 37 dBA. The Town's acoustic consultant, however, has advised Hessler not to use regression analysis to estimate background sounds in Hessler's BP sound study for the Cape Vincent Wind Project, which is the same methodology he used in the SLW sound study. Hessler's methods for assessing background sound levels do not represent generally accepted acoustical measurement procedures. Furthermore, the Town's acoustic consultant, CavanaughTocci, Inc., recommended a detailed methodology to measure background sound that did not associate background sound levels and wind speed. This recommended approach became part of the Town Board's March 2009 Draft Wind Law. In my report, I examined an approach that was very similar to that proposed by Cavanaugh Tocci. The result, e.g., 25.2 dBA, was the same as other methods I examined, but all were substantially lower than Hessler using regression techniques. The developer should undertake another background survey using the more conventional measurement technique suggested by the Town's acoustic consultant. There are other serious flaws, too, in the analysis and conclusion by Hessler .. In Hessler's background sound regression (his Fig 2,2.1), the greatest differential between background and wind turbine sound levels would occur at wind speeds of 2 m/s and less, where background sound levels are 25 elBA or less. In this worse-case condition Project only sound levels of 42 dBA would exceed background levels by 17 dBA (42-25==17). NYSDEC policy indicates Cape Vincent's non-participating residents would likely find this noise increase to be "objectionable" (NYSDEC Table B). The Hessler's response to this view is, "the Project is silent during calm or low wind conditions", However, it has been well established that wind turbines can operate when ground level conditions are calm. Hessler includes the work of van den Berg in his list of references, but does not discuss the focus and importance of his studies of wind turbine sound impacts. Van den Berg concluded in his report of the Rhede Wind Farm"
"In modelling wind turbine sound, ve1:Yrelevant atmospheric behaviour has been 'overlooked ' As a consequence, at low surface wind speeds sucli as often occur at night, wind turbine noise immission levels may be lip to 15 or 18 dB higher than expected. The discrepancy between real and modelled noise levels is greater

St. Lawrence Wind SDEIS Comments by C. Schneider May 30, 2009 for tall wind turbines. International models used to assess wind turbine noise all dwellings should be revised /'01' this atmospheric effect " The behavior van den Berg describes is atmospheric stability and his description of turbine sounds being 15-18 dB higher than expected is right on the mark for the S1. Lawrence wind farm. As noted above modeled turbine noise impacts would be 17 dB higher than more reasonable measures of background sound levels,

8

3.4 Noise Modeling Methodology: Hessler used 0.. for the ground absorption coefficient, but as a noted earlier, Town's 5 acoustic consultant cited new evidence that the model runs should be redone setting ground absorption to zero. Moreover, turbine sound power level should be set to the maximum, 1025 dBA re 1 pW; not 101.7 dBA re 1 p'W. This would be consistent with much of Hessler's other sound studies and both modifications ofhis model parameters would marginally increase projected sound levels. Even small increases, however, may affect some non-participating residences that are close to the NYSDEC guideline .. Developer needs to redo noise modeling. as suggested by Town's acoustic consultant. and calculate a new noise impact contour map. In addition, noise impacts for each nonparticipating residence should be listed in table form to ensure there will not be any difficulty interpreting maps to determine a specific noise impact for a specific residence. This is common practice for other wind developers in New York and it should be required here,

3.5 Model Results:
Sound report states, "The NYSDEC criterion is essentially the same as the Town's 6 dBA increase limit at non-participating residences, which is, ill fact, based on the State guideline" Developer is wrong asserting the Town has a 6 dBA limit at nonparticipating residences. The only local guideline governing noise is that adopted by the Planning Board in September 2006 that is referenced in the SLW DEIS. That guideline stipulated a 5 dBA increase above background sound measured at property lines, not residences. Hessler admits atmospheric stability can lead to higher turbine noise levels than predicted with his model, but he suggests these events are infrequent: "Atmospheric phenomena, sucli as temperature inversions, can also temporarily elevate or enhance the Project sound level at a given location. In short, wind and weather conditions will develop from time to time causing Project sound levels to increase, sometimes substantially, over the nominally predicted level but, based on field measurements of similar projects, these unavoidable and inevitable excursions are infrequent, short-lived and the vast majority a/the time sound levels will be close to the mean predicted value. Hessler is making this judgment based on his experience elsewhere. He does not present any meteorological data that could establish the rate of occurrence of atmospheric

St. Lawrence Wind SDEIS Comments by C. Schneider May 30, 2009 stability. Remarkably, the developer has been collecting wind data from Cape Vincent for many years, but Hessler has no data to determine the frequency of atmospheric stability, This is an important point in assessing the impact of wind power projects in Cape Vincent In my paper I provided estimates of the frequency of atmospheric stability in Cape Vincent from June through October 2008, I found that stable conditions occurred in 67.4% of the nights and found that:

9

"Overall, 29,6% of the nights between June 10 and October 27 had worst-case conditions where wind turbine noise would have been dominant (Table 2). In June and July, wind turbine noise would have been more problematic with worst-case conditions occurring more than 40% of summer nights "
Hessler's "field experience elsewhere" does not discount what I found measuring wind speeds in Cape Vincent The obvious fact is any wind turbines placed in Cape Vincent in the future will commonly operate and produce adverse noise impacts at times when ground level winds are calm. This will lead to human responses described as objectionable by NYSDEC policy, The developer needs to redesign the wind turbine layout plan for the 5t. Lawrence Wind Farm accounting for background sound levels at least 10 dBA lower than that provided by their paid consultant

Thank you for considering my comments and suggestions, Sincerely yours,

ABSTRACT
In response to sound studies from commercial wind developers, a series of background noise surveys were conducted in Cape Vincent, NY between May and July 2008 ..The survey approach included sampling at night under stable atmospheric conditions and systematically selecting monitoring stations at 1.6 km intervals. Stable conditions occurred in 67% of nights and in 30% of those nights, wind velocities represented worst-case conditions where ground level winds were less than 2 mls and hub-height winds were greater than wind turbine cut-in speed, 4 m/s, The median A-weighted L9(IA,9.hr sound pressure level was 25.7 dBA for five, fixed monitoring stations. For two mobile surveys, the medians (L90A.s.min) were comparable, 25.5 and 26.7 dBA. C-weighted SPLs from the two mobile surveys were 40.0 dBC and 43.9 dBC Assuming 45 dBA background noise, developers of the St. Lawrence Wind Farm predicted noise impacts would not exceed local and New York guidelines. However, assuming worst-case conditions using 25 .. 6 dBA background noise, nearly all residences within range of the St. Lawrence Wind Farm exceeded New York guidelines and more than half would have noise levels considered "objectionable" to "intolerable."

1. INTRODUCTION
The impetus for this study began in 2007, shortly after AES-Acciona Energy submitted a sound study for their proposed St. Lawrence Wind Farm Project located in the town where I reside, Cape Vincent, New York USA (Figure l ). By the end of 2007, another wind developer, BP Alternative Energy, also completed a series of studies in support of their proposed Cape Vincent Wind Power Facility Project (Figure 1),. Collectively, the two wind energy projects plan to erect nearly 200 wind turbines (L5 turbines/krn'') within the Town of Cape Vincent The sound studies submitted by the two developers had a number of deficiencies. AES-Acciona was directed by the Town of Cape Vincent's Planning Board" to conduct an accurate assessment of background noise in lieu of assuming 45 dBA as typical of rural environments.' BP's sound study' had issues related to monitoring sites and estimating background levels that were identified by the Town's acoustic consultant'.

Figure 1. Map of the Town of Cape Vincent, NY showing the location of two proposed wind power projects, NYS Rte 12E road-based survey routetyellow pins no. 11-21), Burnt Rock Road road-based survey route (yellow pins no 1-10), and location of baseline, night-time monitoring sites (yellow pins letters A-E In addition, the two Cape Vincent commercial wind developers neglected to consider nighttime, worst-case wind conditions and noise impacts. Swedish and Dutch residents who live near wind farms described wind turbine noise as much louder and more perceptible during evenings and night, and they also reported excessive noise annoyance was associated with sleep disturbance':'. In a study of the noise immissions from the Rhede Wind Park along the DutchGerman border, most of the complaints about noise focused on evenings and night-time, and wind turbine noise was found to be greater than predicted due to stable atmospheric conditions". Stable atmospheric conditions occur when land begins to cool with the setting sun and calm ground level winds become de-coupled from winds aloft Calm winds at ground level provide no masking sounds thereby making wind turbine noise more noticeable, The term worst-case has been commonly used by New York wind developers modeling noise impacts 1.7 H ') 10 Yet, in none of their assessments have they completed an analysis of noise impacts during evenings and nights with stable atmospheric conditions, when wind turbine noise will be most noticeable and the worst-case impact will occur! I In this study I attempt to address some of these concerns related to site selection and atmospheric stability .. A major problem with arbitrary site selection, the industry norm, is that it does not provide a means for establishing accuracy" Probability sampling, on the other hand, allows the calculation of sample error and understanding the degree to which the sample differs from actual community levels. Systematic sampling is a form of probability sampling that uses a random start and a predetermined sample interval for site selection ..12 For this study I used systematic sampling by measuring sound pressure levels (SPL) at regular intervals along secondary rural roads. These roads are little traveled, particularly at night, concurring with the suggestion by van den Berg, II "in order to reduce wind induced 'Sound, it helps to measure over a low roughness surface and in a stable atmosphere, as both factors help 10 reduce

turbulence" "
Specific objectives of this study were to answer the following questions: I)How common is atmospheric stability in Cape Vincent, and under these conditions, how often will winds be strong enough at hub-height to operate commercial wind turbines, 2) what background noise level is typical during stable nights in Cape Vincent, and do levels vary much within the Town, 3) how will predicted wind turbine noise levels exceed estimated background noise and how will these exceedences compare with the Town's and New York State guidelines 13, and 4) how practical is a night-time, mobile survey and how will results compare with a fixed-station survey?

2. METHODS
I collected wind velocity data using two Inspeed Vortex anemometers with Madgetech Pulse data loggers. One anemometer was located on a mast 10m above ground level and the other 1..3 m above ground on a portable mount I field calibrated the anemometers by comparing wind speed with a newly calibrated HOBO weather station. Wind velocity was collected for l C-minute sampling intervals and then averaged for day, evening and night periods, 07:00-18:00, 18:00-22:00 and 22:00-07:00 hours, respectively. I used night-time average wind speed at 10-m (VIO) and average percentage cloud cover from the Watertown, NY weather station to categorize Pasquill stability classifications for each night, using the criteria outlined in Table L For each stability classification I assigned an associated wind shear exponent (m) and then calculated hubheight wind velocities (80-m) according to van den Berg":

VSO-m IVIO-m

=

(h80-m Ihlo_

ll\

)Ill

(1) For 17 of

For the 140-night study period, there were 21 nights with no cloud cover information, these nights I calculated wind shear using 10-m and 13-m wind speeds:

During sound measurements, the portable anemometer was located at the same height as the sound level meter (e.g, L3 111 above ground level), but approximately 15 meters away. Noise measurements were made with a Quest Model 2900 Type II Integrated and Logging Sound Level Meter. An annual factory calibration of the sound meter and the field calibrator was completed in Arpil 2008, prior to data collection, The meter was fitted with a V2 inch Electret Microphone and a 75 mm diameter, open-cell wind screen.
'US. National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration. http://www.arl.noaa.gov/READYpgclassphp Air Resources Laboratory

4

I used two methods to collect A-weighted background noise data in Cape Vincent First, five fixed-unattended monitoring sites were sampled Sound pressure levels were collected for LIDA, L!'.QA, and LWA metrics Three different methods were used to summarize the SPL in order to examine recommended approaches for assessing the quietest period. Two methods were based on recommended procedures submitted to the Town of Cape Vincent: the lowest l-hr mean SPL of l O-min sample intervals '\ and the lowest l Ovmin SPL for a continuous night-time series 15 The third method measured sound metrics for approximately a 9-h1' period. I chose monitoring sites much the same as developer's consultants chose their sites, I picked them arbitrarily (Figure 1). I did not, however, place the sound level meter close to roads, homes and other buildings Instead, I kept my meter at least 50 m from these locations and chose sites more in line with the Town of Cape Vincent's zoning guidelines, which called for measuring noise impacts at the property lines. I surveyed only nights when the atmosphere was calm and stable. For the mobile survey, I employed a systematic sampling methodology with a random start I selected two routes that ran along the longitudinal axis of the town and the two proposed wind projects (Figure I).. Survey nights were selected to coincide with forecasts for stable atmospheric conditions, i.e., calm winds and a clear sky. One survey ran along Burnt Rock Road on May 29-30, and a second along NYS Rte 12E on June 13 (Figure I). Combined, twenty-one sites were sampled for approximately 10 minutes each. I randomly selected a starting point on the route near the end of the project boundaries, but then systematically chose the next site along the path by traveling 1.. km ( I 6 mile), as measured on my vehicle's odometer. Both Aweighted and C-weighted noise measurements were recorded in l-second intervals for approximately 5 minutes for each weighting .. The noises associated with walking to and from the sound level meter and passing vehicles did not influence L90 levels, but they did affect LEQ and LlO levels. Therefore, LEO and LIO levels were Park. Town of Clinton. NY recalculated for the two mobile surveys after removing 30 seconds each from the start and finish of A and C-weighted data collection and removing infrequent passing vehicle noise. I also conducted a mobile survey at the Clinton Wind Park in the Town of Clinton, NY on June 24-25 (Figure 2).. The monitoring stations were not systematically selected along every mile (L6 krn) of roadway. Rather, I chose stations near non-participating landowner residences, similar to what might be done with a compliance survey. Nevertheless, the sample sites were uniformly distributed. Atmospheric conditions were stable, winds at ground level were less than 1 mis, but all wind turbines within view were operating. I used Microsoft Excel to consolidate and summarize the wind and noise data. I did not edit the data files to remove anthropogenic (man-made) noise. I used the statistical software program MyStat and relied on simple statistical tests for normality and non parametric procedures to establish differences in sample distributions,

5

3. RESULTS A. Prevalence of atmospheric stability:
Stable night-time atmospheric conditions (classes E and F) predominated from June through October in Cape Vincent (Table 2), The prevalence of stable (E) and very stable (F) conditions occurred 22.2% and 452% of nights; the overall average was 674% for both classes; higher rates occurred in July and August Although 67..4% of summer night conditions were classified as stable, not all of these nights had sufficient winds at hub-height (e.g .. 80 m) to operate , commercial wind turbines. I examined a subset of the data filtering two variables ..First, I limited I J-m wind speeds to 2 m/s and less, knowing that winds this calm would provide very little leaf and grass rustle and that background noise levels under these conditions were usually very quiet Next, I filtered SO-m wind speed to allow only those nights where velocities exceeded 4 mis, which is a typical cut-in speed for commercial wind turbines. For an area with an operational wind farm, this represents a worst-case condition where ground level winds are calm yet wind turbines are fully operational, generating both electricity and noise. Overall, 29,6% of the nights between June 10 and October 27 had worst-case conditions where wind turbine noise would have been dominant (Table 2) In June and July, wind turbine noise would have been more problematic with worst-case conditions occuning more than 40% of summer nights.
Table 2: Prevalence of Pasquill stability classification and worst-case noise impact conditions for nights in Cape Vincent, NY from June 10-October 27,2008. Worst-case conditions were those stable nights with calm ground level winds (;S2 m/s) and hub-height winds at or above cut-in speed C::4m/s) STABILITY CONDITIONS D

HJN
No 9 3 9 21 12 9 % 42.9 14J 429 100 57 I 42.9

ruL
No 6 8 15 29 23 12 % 20.7 27.6 517 100 793 41.4

E
F

TOTAL
E+F Worst-case

AUG No % 6 200 II 36.7 1.3 433 100 30 24 800 6 20.0

SEP No. 10 8 10 28 18 7

% .357 286 357 100 643 25.0

OCT No. % 13 48.1 0 00 14 51.9 100 27 14 51.9 6 22.2

JUN-OCT Total % 44 32.6 30 22.2 61 45.2 135 100 91 674 40 29.6

B. Statistical treatment of acoustic data:
Visual inspection of the L90A.5-l11io sound level data from the two mobile surveys suggested a skewed, non-normal distribution, I calculated Shapiro-Wilk test statistics for A-weighted and Cweighted L91h LEOand Llo SPLs and found that L90,\. LEOA and L90C distributions were significantly different from normal CPS 005). Consequently, I used medians instead of means to describe central tendency and Kruskal-Wallis non-parametric ANOVA to test differences in the distributions of the sound pressure levels ..

c. Fixed surveys

for baseline background noise:

L90A.9-hr sound pressure levels are plotted for 10-minute intervals at five baseline monitoring locations in Figure 3. At locations A, Band D sound pressure levels were consistently low, -25 dBA, from 9:00 PM throughout the night, then increased around 4:.30 AM due to bird vocalizations. Monitoring location C was similar except for elevated levels from 9:00-11 :00 PM, which were attributable to bam noises in early evening and frog choruses later, The L90A.9.hr for location E was 6.2 dBA higher than the other four sites This site was 200 111 from the lakeshore, and in spite of an average wind speed of 13 mis, there was additional background

Collecting unattended, background sound pressure levels (SPL) in l O-min intervals is how consultants in New York normally acquire and report background noise, although they more typically collect data for a week or two, I used fixed survey data as a baseline to help gauge the accuracy of the mobile survey, At the five fixed survey sites, SPL was consistently low: the median L90A.9-hr level for the five monitoring locations was 25.7 dBA (Table 3), The median SPL based on two alternate methods were comparable: 25.2 dBA for the lowest I-hI' arithmetic average of 10-min spL,14 and 25.0 dBA for the lowest 10-min SPL 15, The night-time sound levels at these fixed stations were also typified by a floor in the meter response at 25-26 dBA (Figure
3)
Table 3: Summary of fixed survey, A-weighted sound pressure levels comparing three reporting time frames: I) 9hr period, 2) the lowest l-hr arithmetic mean for the 9-hr period", and 3) the lowest 10-min interval within the 9-hr

A single site for each of the mobile survey's L90 SPI. is plotted in Figure 4. The sites selected for the plot were those that best conformed to the medians for each survey. At the start of each A-weighted sample and the crossover to C-weighted measurements, there were 5-10 dB increases in noise associated with my walking to and from the meter. Passing vehicles were noisy (e.g., 60-70 dB), but were infrequent occurrences, less so along Burnt Rock Road. Passing vehicles occurred at one site on Burnt Rock Road (site 2) and at five sites along NYS Rte 12E (sites 12, 1.3, 16, 19 and 21). Other sources of anthropogenic noise were a plane (site 1), dairy farm bam cleaner (site 12), and refrigeration fans (sites 14 and 19). Elevated noise was also attributable to natural causes, too: birds and frogs (sites 7 and 10), barking dogs and coyotes (sites 9 and 16), and waves on a nearby beach along the Sf Lawrence River (site 20). Most of these short-duration noises, however, had little effect on the L90A.S.min SPL As noted in the fixed survey, the L90A measurements at a number of sites went down to 25 dBA and no lower, again

Statistical tests showed that L90A noise levels for the fixed survey and two mobile surveys were the same, but the low frequency L90C levels were different. The L90A medians were 25.7, 26.7 and 25,5 dBA for the fixed, NYS Rte 12E and Burnt Rock Road surveys, respectively, The Kruskal- Wallis test indicated that all three surveys had the same distribution (H :::;;; 4,8082,df=2, P= 0,0903). However, for the low frequency L90C noise levels the Kruskal-Wallis statistic showed a highly significant difference between the two Cape Vincent mobile surveys", The C-weighted L90C,5.rnin medians were 43.9 and 40,,0 dBC for NYS Rte 12E and Burnt Rock Road, respectively, and were significantly different (U= 104,00, P=O,OOl).

E. Clinton Wind Park background noise survey:
For the ten monitoring locations within the Clinton Wind Park, A-weighted L90A,S.",;n SPL ranged from .35-43 dBA with a median of 38,0 dBA, C-weighted L9oc.5'''';11 SPL ranged from 49-58 dBC with a median of 52,6 dBC (Table 6). Aside from two cars that passed during the C-weighting data collection at site 3, there was no other noise intrusion, other than wind turbine sounds .. A typical site plot of A and C-weighted SPL is shown in Figure 4 in comparison with the Cape Vincent mobile surveys.

~ No Cvweighted data was collected for the fixed survey. Hence, the Mann-Whitney Kruskal-Wallis for three or more samples.

The L90A.5-min SPL for Clinton were compared with the samples from the two mobile surveys in Cape Vincent The higher levels at Clinton were significantly different from the sample distributions observed in Cape Vincent (Kruskal- Wallis H= 20.7080, P< 0001); the mean ranks for the two Cape surveys were similar while Clinton was significantly greater. Comparisons of C-weighted SPL were significantly different for each of the distributions and mean ranks (H= 23.9684, P< 0.001); again the samples at Cape Vincent and Clinton were all significantly different 4. DISCUSSION - CONCLUSIONS Night-time, stable atmospheric conditions were very common in Cape Vincent between June and October, 2008. The prevalence of Pasquill stability classes E and F were 22% and 45% of nights, respectively. Putting aside any differences in meteorological equipment, prevalence of stability at Cape Vincent is similar to 34% (E) and .32% (F) reported by van den Berg." tor the northern part ofthe Netherlands, He also noted that high wind shears at night are a very common feature of the night atmosphere in temperate zones, Furthermore, the frequent occurrence of stability in Cape Vincent, along with the operation of the Clinton Wind Park during a calm night, contradict the observation that wind turbines "do not operate during calm, still or tranquil conditions.?" Having demonstrated that atmospheric stability is a common occurrence in Cape Vincent, the graphic in Figure 5, taken from the Flat Rock Wind Farm sound report", illustrates why stable, night-time atmospheric conditions represent a worst-case wind turbine noise state. At night, predicted wind turbine noise (upper blue lines) will be most: noticeable, e.. . 17 dBA g louder than ambient background (lower red lines), at the lowest wind speeds, At higher wind speeds, however, wind turbine noise will be masked (e.g. no difference) by background noise (Figure 5), During daytime, the difference between predicted wind turbine and background noises at low wind speeds would be one-half as great as at night Therefore, worst-case wind turbine noise impacts will occur at night with stable atmospheric conditions, and consequently, environmental assessments should focus on these worst-case conditions,

Background sound pressure levels measured in this study were far lower than the levels reported by wind power developers in their sound level studies .. For the fixed surveys the L90A medians were 257, 252, and 25,0 dBA for the 9-hr, lowest l-hr arithmetic average, and lowest 10-min interval summary approaches, respectively, All three methods provided similar estimates of background noise, suggesting any of the three methods will provide adequate estimates of the "quietest periods." For two mobile surveys, the L90A medians were 25.5 dBA and 26.7 dBA for Burnt Rock Road and NYS Rt. 12E surveys, respectively, and they were consistent with those levels measured for the fixed surveys. At the same time, the 25 dBA "floor"observed in both the fixed and mobile surveys indicate that a more sensitive meter and microphone combination would probably exhibit even lower A-weighted background noise levels. Any future study should include the use of the most sensitive instrumentation available. A-weighted sound pressure levels from the mobile surveys in Cape Vincent were the same as levels observed at fixed, unattended monitoring locations. The fact the SPL distributions were not statistically different seems to suggest arbitrarily selected monitoring locations are just as efficient and accurate as a systematic survey with a random start Yes, a few fixed sites can be accurate and efficient if care is taken to find appropriate sites and operating conditions. However, I could have increased the measured SPL if I had located equipment closer to homes, barns and roads, and if 1had picked nights with moderate winds. A systematic mobile survey removes the subjective selection of sites, and thus, it can help minimize potential abuse, There are other advantages as well: no landowner permission is required, no extensive hiking off-road at night, no security problems with unattended metering far from landowner premises, little time needed to prepare a survey, and no requirement for big battery packs and waterproof environmental housings There are also the advantages of attended metering, such as being able to document various noise intrusions, A mobile survey could also be used to help verify and supplement fixed station SPLs in cases where a few fixed sites were used to characterize background noise over a large geographic area, AES-Acciona and BP Alternative Energy reported background noise levels in Cape Vincent as 45 dBA and 47 dBA, respectively, more than 20 dBA greater than this study. L2 Neither developer, however, focused their studies on the night-time period, even though night noise levels are far quieter than daytime and represent worst-case conditions, Rather, they chose to include daytime, windy conditions where background noise is greater and wind turbine noise impacts the least The median A-weighted and C-weighted levels measured within the Clinton Wind Park were 13-16 dB greater than Cape Vincent These increases in background noise are undoubtedly due to wind turbine operation. It also suggests that the quiet, night-time, rural

11

soundscape, which residents value most", could be transformed into one where night-time sound levels more closely resemble suburban and urban environments!'} The low background sound levels reported in this study result in very different wind turbine noise impacts than those predicted by AES-Acciona. Columns A-C in Table 7 are taken from AES-Acciona's sound level report's predicted impacts from the S1. Lawrence Wind Farm, assuming 45 dBA background noise. I With no impacts more than 5 dBA above background levels (col. C) they concluded, "As a result, noise levels from the proposed SI Lawrence Wind

In its most recent wind turbine noise impact assessment for the St. Lawrence Wind Farm", AES-Acciona assumed a background noise level of 37 dBA, used the NYSDEC noise increase guideline of 6 dBA above background, and adopted a Project-only sound level of 42 dBA to assess potential adverse impacts. They concluded " . the numerous houses along the Sf

Lawrence River shoreline, are well outside of the area of adverse Project noise impacts. "
Again, if AES-Acciona bad assumed a worst-case background level of 25.6 dBA from this study, they would have to conclude that nearly all the houses along the river will be within the area of adverse noise impacts from the St. Lawrence Wind Farm. The difference between C- and A-weighted SPL is used as a simple screening method for assessing potential low frequency noise problems.":" If this difference exceeds 20 dB, then a low frequency problem may exist For the mobile surveys in Cape Vincent, the differentials in median LEOc-LEOA were below this threshold.

5. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I wish to thank Chuck Ebbing for his encouragement and advice. I also want to thank Rick Bolton, George Karnperman and Rick James for their reviews of my manuscript.

To Whom It May Concern:
I have reviewed the April 2009 SLW Supplemental EIS and have identified the following items that are not adequately addressed.

Descriptio" o('Proposed Action: 2.5.6. In this paragraph SL W states that the collector substation located on Swamp Road will step up the voltage of the electricity so that it can be reliably transmitted through the 9-mile overhead line to the transmission owner interconnection substation located on County Route 179 and interconnected with the 115 kV transmission line at the existing National Grid substation in Lyme. The poles used for the overhead 34,5 KV and 115 KV transmission lines can cause interference with agriculture operations when located on farmland. As a result the Department recommends that the 34.5KV lines be buried in agriculture fields. Why are you not burying the lines in farmland? 2.6.2. In this paragraph SL W states that in active agricultural areas, agricultural protection measures in accordance with the guidelines of the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets will be followed (Appendix A); and the cable will be placed at a minimum depth of48 inches or 6 inches beyond the depth of bedrock (Exhibit 2,6.3). NYS DA&M says that at no time will the depth be less than 24 inches below the soil surface. Is it 24 or 6? 2.6.4. In this paragraph SL W states that if bedrock is encountered it is anticipated it will be excavated with a backhoe. If this is not possible, drilling, pneumatic jacking, hydraulic fracturing or blasting, as a last resort, would excavate the bedrock. The geological study indicates that the area consists of "irregular bedrock" surface, the presence of large voids and rapid underground drainage. There is no indication that any fieldwork has been done to establish major springs and their use or flow prior to construction, thus no baseline to measure the impact of construction. Nor is there any information on wells and springs within 500 feet of where blasting will occur. Will this information be included in the FEIS? Also, what is SL W plan to provide citizens with potable water ifweU problems occur? 2.6.4. In this paragraph SLW doesn't say if the concrete will be mixed on site or hauled in from off site. In either case will the FEIS needs to include a description of specific

processes that will be implemented to ensure the concrete is handled properly during construction to limit the impacts to surface waters, wetlands and underground waters, given the existence of karst topography in the project area, Exhibit 2.6A In this exhibit SLW states that the final overhead transmission line right-ofway will be identified post-construction on as-built drawings which will be filed with the Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme. Why not identified pre-construction? 2.8. In this paragraph SL W outlines their decommissioning plan. Why doesn't it include the long-distance transmission lines? What is the plan to ensure that there sufficient SLW funds are available to execute the plan? If it includes bonding, which we favor, how will that bonding follow to successive owners?

I have reviewed the April 2009 SLW SEIS and have identified the following comments that members of the WPEG and Governmental Agencies made regarding the SLW DElS either in the Public Hearing or in written comments that are not addressed in the SEIS: Environmental I) What are the migratory patterns of the herons, how high do they fly when they are migrating? How long do they stay in CV? When do they come? When do they depart Why isn't this addressed in the DEIS? 2) The impacts of shadow effect on wild life should be part of the DElS, 3) Individuals; guides and town must be compensated if towers result in loss of fishing revenues, 4) Need to establish who the environmental monitor works for and who he/she sends reports to. 5) The development of a long-term environmental management plan should be considered to incorporate plans for restoration of environmental impacts during and following project construction, environmental considerations to be included in ongoing maintenance of facility, a contingency plan to assess and minimize environmental impacts during major repairs; and assessment and mitigation of ~nvironmental impacts during decommissioning process, 6) It is important to know the impacts of shadow effect on the fish in the water. 7) How can the impact on wel1s and springs be evaluated if there is no baseline for the springs or wells. Fieldwork should be done to establish major springs and their use or flow prior to construction. We would like to see identification of all wells and springs within 500 feet of where blasting will occur. Also address the steps to be made to provide citizens with potable water if problems occur. 8) The project may require an Artic1e 24 Freshwater Wetland permit and section 401 Water Quality Certification.

9) Since issues regarding potential medical problems related to wind turbines come up with proposals around the state, it would seem appropriate to include a section on medical issues in the OElS, 10) Critical information needed to evaluate potential impacts resulting from the project were not performed as part of the OElS, The OEIS should be updated to include: Geotechnical field data; groundwater studies; wetland field survey; and hydro geological balance study based upon long-term runoff By omission of this information during the design and review stage with a disclaimer that it will be obtained "prior to construction" the developer avoids all accountability from lead agency, involved agency and public comment 11) At best the studies to date may be considered pilot efforts requiring 3-5 years of intense further studies of many groups before any conclusions of value may be drawn. 12) Are you and Audubon Society aware of the IBA (Important Bird Habitat) on Pleasant Valley Road? How will it be effected? What does Audubon say? 13) The lease with SWL takes away landowners constitutional rights to sue for punitive damages and the right to jury traiL Why is this acceptable? 14) Section 2,6.4 ..The SDEIS needs to inc1ude a description of specific processes that will be implemented to ensure the concrete is handled properly during construction to limit the impacts to surface waters, wetlands and underground waters, given the existence of karst topography in the project area. 15) The report should specifically state that the habitat type located at Chaumont Barrens and Three Mile Creek will not be impacted by the project 16) Section 32..We note that no biotic or water quality data is provided but this information should be included in the report along with a discussion of potential impacts from project construction. 17) Section .33. The OElS does not identify if the wind project will impact to establish the ST Lawrence Wetland and Grassland Management District (SLWGMD). Nor does it mention if it is compatible with the purpose of SLWGMD. 18) Section 3..3.6. We (NYSFWL) strongly recommend that the Smith (2007) be considered by the project sponsor in siting the project features. 19) Section 3.3,6. We (NYSFWL) found insufficient data exists to adequately conduct a risk assessment and predict wildlife mortality for this project, 20) The DEIS falls short of providing the necessary information in a comprehensive manner. The DEIS states that additional data on wildlife use and potential impacts is

forth coming. NYSFWL will review this information prior to making a final determination,

Sincerely,

May 28, 2009

ML Thomas Rienbeck Town of Cape Vincent Supervisor 1964 NY8 Rt 12E Cape Vincent, NY 13618 I would like to take this opportunity to make comments and express concerns 011 the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement supplied to you by Acciona's St. Lawrence Wind Farm. Regarding Cumulative and Growth Inducing Impacts in paragraph 4.1.3.2 81. Lawrence Wind states that while cumulative effects to Indiana Bats may occur as a result of increased growth and development in the area, unrelated catastrophic events such as "white nose syndrome" are likely to have greater cumulative effects on Indiana Bats than the projects under review in this analysis or continued human encroachment on Indiana Bat habitat. What is the cumulative impact of botli events? III paragrah 4.1.11.2 a more recent housing value study should be done due to the dramatic change ill tile housing market since 2007. In the section on Alternative Analysis paragraph 7.2 states that the Project will meet all the following setbacks required by the Planning Board of Cape Vincent. 1,500 feet from the Village of Cape Vincent boundary line 1,000 feet to a non-participating property line 1.250 feet to a non-participating residence, and 750 feet to a participating residence. Where do we stand setbacks?
Oil

these setbacks? Are they correct? Is this the last word

011

Regarding 7.6. Table 7-1, what compensation are the three owners witlt over 48db goillg to get?

11011

participating home

In the Appendix Wildlife Studies section E, the avian and bat study was conducted in one year. Why did" 'tyou do a multi-year study? In Appendix EI, the bat studies were done with radar. WIry 110t also sonar'l Also, in Appendix El SL W states that there is no statistical evidence that Indiana Bats are in the project area but Appendix E# Section 3.0 July-August 2007 it states that four were captured and tracked. Appendix E6 July-August 2007 1.0 states six captured Indiana bats were radio tracked and roost sites were identified in the project area.

Appendix E4 June 2008 states that no Indiana Bats were captured during that study. Appendix F3 says they are present Are there Indiana Bats ill the Project area 01' not

ami if there are, what mitigation actions willyou take?

Appendix £3 is labeled "Blanding Turtle" but reports 011 bats.
III Appendix £7 which of the Blanding Turtle mitigation recommendations will be

adopted and which will not and why not?
III Appendix J regarding Supplementul Shadow Flicker, what will you do to mitigate

To Whom It May Concern: I have reviewed the April 2009 SL W SEIS and have identified the following comments that members of the WPEG and Governmental Agencies made regarding the SL W DEIS either in the Public Hearing or in written comments that are not addressed in the SEIS: Financial:' l ) Who negotiates PILOT payments for our town is not addressed, 2) What is the estimated cost per kilowatt hour produced for the first year of the project, first five years and the first 10 years? 3) There is no mention of Payment, Performance and Maintenance Bonding for this project If project is not bonded, neither the towns nor leaseholders have any guarantee that promises will be kept, construction completed, payments made, maintenance done, and dismantling completed, 4) Most DElS I have reviewed for Wind Power Projects include the results ofa Job and Economic Development Impact model, None was referenced in this DEIS so it appears that the Socioeconomic Section was based upon assumptions 5) There is insufficient documentation to back up the claim that downsizing the project is not considered an economically viable solution 6) Since turbines are considered a utility then shouldn't the land on which they are placed be assessed as industrial use and taxed accordingly and not taxed as agriculture. 7) I am concerned that the DEIS does not adequately address who will compensate businesses and individuals if the proposed wind project results in loss of fishing revenues Of\C1 !liSt Ioc~ C Geological: None, D. Historical. 1) How will historic designated properties near towers be compensated. 2) How does SLW plan to compensate Indigenous Americans if Indian burial grounds are discovered?

j

i::E

NU-tAW!.L) .'

3) Why no mention of Dodge Bay in the historical Architecture Resource Investigation section of the DEIS/SupplementaL

I am commenting on the Saint Lawrence Wind Farm SDEIS with regard to the complaint resolution plan as listed at £1ppemlix !l-1 - Complaint Resolution Program The "Complaint Appeal Procedure" states that the Complaint Resolution board shall consist of three members: an SLW designee, a Town Officer or Employee appointed to the position annually, and an independent third party expert" Since the appeal procedure follows the original complaint which "SL W will make every reasonable effort to resolve" it does not make any sense that SLW should also be included in an appeal board, If they had resolved the complaint in the first place the appeal would not be necessary, The appendix also states "In making such decision, the Complaint Resolution Board shall take into account the terms and conditions of the special use permit and approved site plans, and shall not require any resolution that is inconsistent with such terms," This seems to say that as long as the permit and site plans are approved that there is no way ANY complaint will be heard, This statement should be eliminated from the SDEIS. Charles Jury 2552 Humphrey Rd Cape Vincent NY 13618

To Whom It May Concern: I have reviewed the April 2009 SL W Supplemental EIS and have identified the following items that are not adequately addressed.

Cumulative and Growth Inducing Impacts; 4,132. In this paragraph SLW says that while cumulative effects to Indiana bats may occur as a result of increased growth and development in the area, unrelated catastrophic events, such as "white nose syndrome," are likely to have greater cumulative effects on Indiana bats than the projects under review in this analysis or continued human encroachment on Indiana bat habitat What is the cumulative impact of both events? 4. L 11.2. Since the housing market has changed so dramatical1y since 2007 why haven't you done a more recent "housing value study? D. Alternatives Analvsis: 7.2. In this paragraph SLW says that the Project will meet all of the following setbacks required by the Planning Board of Cape Vincent (Are these current????): o o o o 1,500 feet from the Village of Cape Vincent boundary line; 1,000 feet to a non-participating property line; 1,250 feet to a non-participating residence; and 750 feet to a participating residence.

706. Table 7-1" What compensation are the three non participating home owners with over
48db going to get? E. Appendix Wildfire Studies." Appendix K The avian and bat study was conducted in one year. Why didn't you do a multi-year study? Appendix EL The bat studies were done with radar. Why not also sonar?

Appendix E1. In tills Appendix SLW says that there is no statistical evidence that Indiana Bats are in the project area but Appendix E3 Section 300 July Aug 2007 states that four were captured and tracked, Appendix E6 July Aug 2007 1.0 states six captures Indiana bats were radio tracked and roost sites were identified in the project area. Appendix E4 June 2008 states that no Indiana bats were captured during that study" Appendix F3 says they are present Are there Indiana bats in the project area or not and if there are, what mitigation actions will you take? Appendix E3 is labeled Blanding Turtle but reports on bats. Appendix E7. Which of the Blanding Turtle mitigation recommendations will be adopted and which will not and why not? Appendix J Supplemental Shadow Flicker. What your analysis is wrong?
Appendix L.

I have reviewed the April 2009 SL W SEIS and have identified the following comments that members ofthe WPEG and Governmental Agencies made regarding the SL W DElS either in the Public Hearing or in written comments that are not addressed in the SEIS:

Will those tasking in the Planning Boards 11 Julv 2007 LeJler to SLW nol responded 10 in the SEIS be included in the FEfS? 1) The Planning Board in their 11 July 2007 letter to SL W in paragraph 6 asked that SWL work with BP on the transmission line and asked that any response by BP be provided the Planning Board. That response belongs in the Supplement but is not provided. Why not? 2) The Planning Board in their 11 July 2007 letter to SLW in paragraph 7 asked that SWL produce a revised visual impact study based upon the new project map" They asked that seven specific locations be included. That response belongs in the Supplement but is not provided. Why not? 3) The Planning Board in their 11 July 2007 letter to SLW in paragraph 8 asked that SWL include measures of commercial and pleasure watercraft in the background ambient sound measurement. There are no such measures in Supplemental Appendix L 1 & 2. Why not? 4) The Planning Board in their 1] July 2007 letter to SL W in paragraph 9 asked that SWL meet with the Cape Vincent Fire Department and work out an emergency fire and ambulance response plan. Why isn't it included in Appendix B Emergency Response Plan? 5) There are many variables that could impact the number of turbines you can site in the Project Area. What is number that keeps the project economically viability?

The analysis lists all off-air TV channels within 100 miles of the proposed wind farm Following the list is a short narrative regarding how the wind farm may affect off-air TV reception, Included is the statement "Although it is unlikely that there will be severe loss of off-air TV coverage in any of the communities in the vicinity of the windfarm in those areas where the loss of TV channels is greatest and becomes an issue with the residents of that community, TV programming by alternative methods can be offered to mitigate the issue ", It goes on to say that the alternative methods would be cable where available or Direct Broadcast Satellite, What it does not say is who will determine whether there is a problem and who will pay for the alternative method. It should also be noted that cable TV is not available to all areas of Cape Vincent and that DBS does not offer all local channels, These local channels are necessary for local news, emergency information, weather alerts, school closings, security alerts, etc Ellen Jury 2552 Humphrey Rd Cape Vincent NY 13618

Since the windmills have gone up on Wolfe Island, which is right across from Cape Vincent, some local people seem to have changed their minds as to how they feel about having one of these industrial turbines close to their property. I have also talked to people on Wolfe Island and they are not happy about them, BUT IT IS TOO LATE There arc so many issues with these turbines. The town has put new water lines in the township to promote growth and increase our tax base, but will people want to come to this area when they see turbines everywhere in the town? Also, the health issue is a very big concern, how will these turbines affect the children and adults? I believe more research is needed in this area and of course there is also the effect on wildlife .. With these new industrial turbines, a property re-evaluation will be required sooner than anticipated. Will these turbines decrease property values? We have approximately fifteen miles of waterfront on Lake Ontario and the same for the St Lawrence River including four islands. Our seasonal residents are very important to our area and contribute so much in taxes and expertise, some are choosing to make their seasonal home into year round residences, which helps our local economy and encourage more businesses. Will this continued to happen with an industrial area all around them? We have too much at stake, because this will take away our image, and the beauty of our township. Wind is not consistent, you can't store it and you need a backup system as well. Water current in the St Lawrence is 8 mph and is constant I believe under- water turbines will be our future for electricity. Let's decide wh(:lt ; <:: h",d fm thp ~;r~ everyone's concerns into consideration
p ....

I have a comment about St. Lawrence wind's SDEIS regarding the report on the Indiana bat Jefferson County is home to the northernmost colony of Indiana brown bats, a federally listed endangered species, that are undergoing a serious population decline. There is a hibernacula in Glen Park, New York approximately 20 miles from Cape Vincent. The Indiana brown bat typically moves between 12 and 40 miles to roost locations, SLW'S Indiana bat study reports that Cape Vincent provides summer colony habitat, roosting and foraging areas for the Indiana Brown bat and also it documented that there is a maternity roost location in this same area. This is significant because Indiana bats have strong fidelity to summer colony areas, roosts and foraging habitat (USFWS 1999). Radio telemetry studies in NY have shown this to be true for maternity roost locations as well where the Indiana bat forms maternity colonies of 20 to 100 members. I am concerned that the Cape Vincent Indiana bat studies are insufficient. The length of time may not be sufficient to determine bat presence because weather conditions change from year to year and this could very well affect bat activity. The Cape Vincent test was conducted in July/August of 2007 but the report is not clear as to how many days were spent in the field and under what conditions. I also noticed that the report on Indiana Bat Roost Trees and Emergence Counts on bats captured outside Cape Vincent, New York sampling by Sanders Environmental Inc. has a date of July & August, 2007" Upon going over the report prepared for the Horse creek wind farm in neighboring Clayton, New York, I noticed they reported in their study that they trapped their first Indiana bat on June 02, (although a gap in netting activities indicates that bats could have been present in late May) and the last radio telemetry location occurred on August 09. After July .31, capture rates significantly decreased. Depending on when the Cape Vincent studies were done this may have had an effect on the results also. Sanders Environmental did not do thermal imaging or use acoustical radar. The Indiana brown bat is difficult to distinguish from the little brown bat therefore additional mist net surveys need to be conducted during the spring and the fall migration to understand the project area number and diversity of bats passing through the project area. These are extraordinary times and they call for extraordinary measures. We have an endangered species mysteriously dying off by the thousands. The Indiana bats have been affected by white nose syndrome, the mysterious ailment that has killed thousands of these bats. White nose syndrome has been identified among Indiana bats wintering in Glen Park The issue of the white nose syndrome, and the fact that the Indiana

bat is already an endangered species requires that we must move with great caution since this could become a critical issue for the Indiana bat's survival.

St. Lawrence Wind Power has the potential to significantly impact the future survival of the
Indiana bat because the fragmentation of habitat can have a negative effect bat on an already dwindling bat population,

Within 3/4 of a mile from the shores of Cape Vincent there already is an operational 86 turbine wind power plant on Wolfe Island, Canada. In Clayton, NY, Horse Creek wind farm is proposing to erect 62 turbines and another 77 turbine project is planned for Galoo Island. BP's Cape Vincent wind project indicates their number is up to 140 Plus, slated for the area and 8L W lists 53 turbines. That is the potential for a total of'< 86 + 62 + 77 + 140 + 53 = 418 turbines. This means that potentially if all these projects come to fruition there would be 418 wind turbines within a 25 mile radius of the Indiana bat hibernacula in Glen Park, New York. Henderson, New York is also entertaining the idea of a wind farm and if the project that is developed it would only further increase the potential damaging effect on the bat population. Already diminished in numbers, we are then going to assault this creature by fragmenting its habitat and destroying its foraging ground. Without a more extensive detailed study in Cape Vincent there is no way of knowing how many Indiana bats are actually in the area. In the case of such a sensitive issue studies should be done by an independent company, not one who depends on their lively hood from the wind companies. Another issue to consider is pressure changes that the spinning blades have on the lungs of the bats once the turbines become operational. This will also increase the mortality rate of an already endangered species and could become a critical issue in the future survival of the bat population especially considering the cumulative effects. Lastly, were the transmission lines routes also included as part of the area being tested? St Lawrence Wind will be irreversibly committing resources to this project, resources that will cause the destruction of habitat, foraging areas and possibly causing irrevocable damage to this federal1y protected species. Not only do I think that the bat studies are inadequate but I think, that due to the plight of the Indiana bat and the sensitive nature of the area, the project should not be in Cape Vincent.